There's been a lot of news over the past couple days, so some things tend to slip through the cracks. Like when a U.S. Congressman says we should bomb Mecca if we're attacked by Islamic terrorists. He still has not retracted his statement.
I don't need to tell you what political party he belongs to.
This is a terrible thing, but what makes it worse is that a lot of Americans feel this way. It's a matter of "killing the bad guys", and if we do that, the problems will go away. Democrats try to offer sensible, nuanced solutions and they get called weak. Republicans, on the other hand, can say this kind of thing, claim it was "taken out of context" and get re-elected.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Somehow I missed this
Posted by Bell Curve at 12:46 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
He hangs himself even more, in my opinion, in his attempt to explain himself. His lack of understanding of the problem of terrorism is staggering--he actually thinks we can use deterrence! Here's an excerpt from the Rocky Mountain News:
In an interview, Tancredo said he did not intend to offend moderate Muslims, whom he calls the "best hope" of bringing terrorists to justice.
"When we bombed Hiroshima, when we bombed Dresden, we punished a lot of people who were not necessarily (guilty)," Tancredo said. "Not every German was a member of the Nazi Party. You do things in war that are ugly."
He stressed that he was not advocating an attack on Islamic holy sites, but that counterattacks had to be considered--and perhaps telegraphed ahead of time. That way, he said, both sides would know the stakes under a worst-case scenario, much as they did under the Cold War theory of "mutually assured destruction."
I suppose the idea is: if you bomb us, we'll bomb someone else. Just like when Osama bin Laden attacked us, we invaded Iraq. It sure has worked well so far!
Yes, that is a shocking statement. But I doubt he was thinking solely of blood thirsty revenge. I suspect this is a misguided attempt to propose a way to deter terrorist groups that - despite his party's rhetoric to the contrary - he realizes is NOT state supported. That is when you have a nuclear threat from a state, you threaten to nuck them if they nuke you. But what would deter a stateless nuclear suicide bomber? This guy thinks that promising to vaporize Mecca if they nuke one of our cities might just do the trick.
I agree it is a terrible thing to speak so lightly of. But I have to admit that his idea is at least in the realm of reason. If, that is, his logic is as I describe (and from reading the article I got the impression that it is).
I'm not convinced that such a policy would deter these guys. It is hard to predict what such messianic maniacs care about. But this guy is right to be thinking about what they might care enough about to be afraid of losing. What ever they are afraid of losing we should do our best to convince them we will destroy it if they use a nuke on us.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Most American political and military leaders have long since concluded that the attacks on defenseless populations in non-military targets of Hiroshima and Dresden were, at best, a bad idea. Robert McNamara recently acknowledged they were probably war crimes. Repeat that to again yourself slowly. Few people would trot out Hiroshima and Dresden as examples of good US policy to be emulated in the future, even if you think they are justifiable. Almost anyone who has more than a band-of-brothers understanding of WWII realizes that bombing Mecca would be as BAD an idea as Dresden(not as GOOD), even if there were terrorists there.
For those who have forgotten the details of Dresden, here is a summary. Also, check out an air force discussion . A summary: Over two days and nights from February 13-15, 1945, American and British bombers sent wave after wave of bombers. The conditions created a firestorm with temperatures reaching 1,500F degrees, and created a vacuum nearby literally sucking in people from buildings and shelters. Official German death toll estimates are around 35,000 (US = 25,000) with another 30,000 wounded. Higher figures have long been suspected because the city (relatively untouched by bombing) was full of refugees, particularly from the East.
But calling a Republican ignorant is like calling a whale big: that's what it is, and it's not going to change.
// posted by LTG
This guy misses the point of deterrance. It't not about punishment. It's about threatened retaliation to avoid its neccesity.
It's like the scene in the movie Dr. Strangelove when the title character confronts the Russian Ambassador about the secret Russian doomsday device. "The point is the inspire the FEAR to attack...SO WHY DID YOU KEEP IT A SECRET!? EH!? WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL THE WORLD?!"
A better example for this guy would be the story I heard about Churchill. Supposedly there were rumors that Hitler was thinking about using chemical weapons on London during "The Blitz." Churchill made a public statement that if the NAZIs used chemical weapons, the British would use their weaponized anthrax on Berlin. Neither weapon was used.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
You don't hear Londoners talking about bombing Mecca. Instead, you hear about them protecting Mosques and talking to their Muslim communities. Thinking that using threats will deter fundamentalists shows a complete misunderstanding of Islam and the beliefs, values, and character of Muslims and Arabs in general.
The mere threat simply brings the Crusades back to life and closes the historical circle for many Muslims. And it further sours the Arab (for the record, please don’t' confuse Arab and Muslim) attitude toward the West. It risks radicalizing moderate Arabs who would rightly come forward to defend their homes and neighbors. It isn't just about Mecca- it is about self-defense (see my previous comments on this). Talk about making Pan-Arabism a reality fast!
Just a side note: I am hearing that the new Saudi ambassador to the US is currently being sued by the 9/11 families for supposedly cavorting with Bin Laden et al.
// posted by USWest
While not confusing Arabs with Muslims is okay, it's irrelevant here. The terrorists appear to be from not only the Arab world, but Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, etc...
// posted by LTG
One of the London suicide bombers was a West Indian immigrant who converted. Richard Ried was also a new convert as was that kid from Marin they caught in Afghanistan.
I heard a speach recently by the Prime Minister of India. At the end of a passage about Indian democracy, he said "There are 150 million Muslims living in India. And not one of them has been found among the ranks of Al Qaeda." A thing to be proud of if its true.
As for bombing Mecca. I don't think even this nut Republican is advocating bombing Mecca except in the event of a nuclear attack. The bombings in London don't qualify. In fact, I would bet that the death toll in the bombings does not qualify as either the deadliest train accident or the deadliest terrorist attack in Britain. Not to take anything away from it but let's keep these risks in perspective.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
RxR... actually, I think he was suggesting conventional bombing in retaliation for conventional attacks, e.g. 9/11.
I agree that he's not the guy to determine our foreign policy. But he suggested bombing Mecca or "take out" Mecca as he put it, in response to a question of what to after a terrorist nuclear attack.
Quoted from the article linked in the original post:
"Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, was asked on a radio talk show Friday how the United States should respond if terrorists struck several of its cities with nuclear weapons.
"'Well, what if you said something like _ if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.'"
The guy is wrong either way but exagerating his wrongness just allows him and his ilk to portray liberals as rash and foolish. Take him at his word and argue against that.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Post a Comment